https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103480 Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gotmax@e.email Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |gotmax@e.email Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |POST Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Maxwell G <gotmax@e.email> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/cargo/registry/print_bytes-0.6.0/COPYRIGHT See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files This is a problem with rust2rpm and not necessarily something that can be fixed here. I suppose the best way to handle this for now would be to remove the license files and README from %{crate_instdir} in %install and just mark the relative paths with `%doc` and `%license` to install them in the usual locations. - 's/Patch0:/Patch: /'. Source isn't numbered and Patch doesn't need to be either. Numbering Sources and Patches is done automatically in modern RPM versions. rpmlint finds: rust-print_bytes.src: W: strange-permission rust-print_bytes.spec 600 NOTE: This should be fixed rust-print_bytes+default-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation NOTE: spurious rust-print_bytes+default-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-print_bytes.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 rust-print_bytes-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 NOTE: I assume you switched these to use SPDX identifiers now that that's been approved. The Change owners said[1] that's allowed now, but apparently rpmlint hasn't been updated. [1]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/N2JPAJRXMVQ75G67V6YCHI74PX5KVGZ2/ Ctrl-F for NOTE for my other interspersed comments (2/3 are about fedora-review's output and not actual issues). All of the issues I pointed out are minor nitpicks and mostly the fault of rust2rpm, so package approved. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cargo, /usr/share/cargo/registry NOTE: Owned by cargo [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Handled by dependency generator [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. NOTE: ExclusiveArch to %{rust_arches} [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust- print_bytes-devel , rust-print_bytes+default-devel , rust- print_bytes+specialization-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. NOTE: rust2rpm -p should probably give a more descriptive comment than "# Initial patched metadata", but oh well. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/print_bytes/0.6.0/download#/print_bytes-0.6.0.crate : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3057e36886667c470305bb076abc7f2f77a5662cb8de4124a4f5e6206ad2acd7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3057e36886667c470305bb076abc7f2f77a5662cb8de4124a4f5e6206ad2acd7 Requires -------- rust-print_bytes-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo rust-print_bytes+default-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(print_bytes) rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cargo crate(print_bytes) Provides -------- rust-print_bytes-devel: crate(print_bytes) rust-print_bytes-devel rust-print_bytes+default-devel: crate(print_bytes/default) rust-print_bytes+default-devel rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel: crate(print_bytes/specialization) rust-print_bytes+specialization-devel Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/gotmax/Sync/git-repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2103480-rust-print_bytes/srpm/rust-print_bytes.spec 2022-07-03 16:40:28.275454159 -0500 +++ /home/gotmax/Sync/git-repos/packaging/fedora_rpms/review.repos/2103480-rust-print_bytes/srpm-unpacked/rust-print_bytes.spec 2022-07-03 12:21:43.000000000 -0500 @@ -1,2 +1,11 @@ +## START: Set by rpmautospec +## (rpmautospec version 0.2.6) +%define autorelease(e:s:pb:) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: + release_number = 1; + base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}")); + print(release_number + base_release_number - 1); +}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{?dist} +## END: Set by rpmautospec + # Generated by rust2rpm 21 %bcond_without check @@ -85,3 +94,4 @@ %changelog -%autochangelog +* Sun Jul 03 2022 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> 0.6.0-1 +- First version Related to rpmautospec. Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2103480 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, C/C++, Ocaml, PHP, Haskell, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103480 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
